[horusthecat]

I would consider using it because:

1. I work in a backwards enterprise shop where "no one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" and it would be easier (read as "possible) to get IT here to support it than Postgres. (That said, they do support Mongo internally but won't admit that to software teams)

2. It's much cheaper than Oracle, which is the other "enterprise" database where it's easier to get an install done

3. It's not Oracle

[131012]

Can you elaborate on point 3? If the argument is ideological, I get it. I'm more interested in the technical argument.

[cwyers]

Oracle is a fine enough database (it really is), but it costs an exceptional amount of money and (I haven't touched it in a long time so I may be out of date on this, but I don't think I am) the developer tool experience is not great. Oracle SQL Developer is ugly and slow compared to SQL Server Management Studio. Basically, if you've used both Oracle and SQL Server you can tell which company had their CEO on stage shouting "developers developers developers" and which is run by the lawnmower.

[pritambaral]

> and which is run by the lawnmower.

More on this reference, the brilliant slam down of Oracle by Bryan Cantrill: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1981

[neilsimp1]

> Oracle SQL Developer is ugly and slow compared to SQL Server Management Studio

This cannot be said enough. I've recently changed positions to a team using Oracle, coming from MSSQL, and dammit if I don't hate SqlDeveloper.

[protomyth]

There is another argument for or against adoption of Oracle and that is a basic business argument. Oracle is expensive and their virtualization costs are well above Microsoft.

[dotancohen]

Not the OP, but licensing comes to mind. MSSQL licensing and Windows Server licensing are a pain, especially in virtualized environments. But Oracle? The word predatory - complete with claws and fangs - comes to mind.